Dr. Shelley K. Taylor

taylor@uwo.ca WESTERN UNIVERSITY

November 18, 2014

Background—numbers, mismatches &

culturally/linguistically responsive pedagogy; educator beliefs & needs

Needs analysis for teaching in multicultural schools

o micro (school-based) needs

o macro (societal level) needs

Discussion

Recommendations

Canadian population: 35 million (Statistics Canada, 2011)

200,000 immigrants/year & majority settle in Ontario

16.3% of new immigrants in 2011 students under age 14 (69.1% between 15-64)

In Toronto District School Board (2013), over 50% of students speak L1 other than English

Diverse student body, but homogenous teachers; mismatch

Immigrant & refugee children encounter English (or Danish!) for 1st time in classroom

Challenges:

learn L2

study content via L2 (CBI) with discipline-specific discourses

possible clash of knowledges → multicultural students & ‘national curriculum’ (Holmen, 2011)

culturally responsive pedagogy = curricular changes so students receive appropriate instruction

“curriculum” changes (Cummins, 2001 & 2011) →

classroom & school policies; pedagogy; assessment; community involvement, etc.

responsive to linguistic, cultural, racial & religious diversity

“… these children (and their families) contain ample resources... that can form the bases for an education that far exceeds what working-class students usually receive” (Moll,

1992, p. 21)

culturally/linguistically responsive pedagogy informed by funds of knowledge involves including the resources L2 children into the (Danish, Canadian, etc.) classroom with them

Includes plurilingualism…

“the ability to use languages for the purposes of

communication & to take part in intercultural

interaction, where a person, viewed as a social actor

has proficiency, of varying degrees, in several

languages & experience of several cultures” (Coste et al.,

2009, p. 11)

complex competence on which the social actor may

draw (Coste et al., 2009, p. 17)

1. “TL-only”: instruction should be in the TL &

there is no place for students’ L1s in FL or

FSL teaching (neither heritage nor dominant

Ls)

2. No translation between the L1 & TL

3. Languages should be kept separate

(Cummins, 2007)

Pedagogy that enables /

provides space for

plurilinguals to draw on

diverse linguistic

competences, heightened

multilingual awareness,

discursive & pragmatic

knowledge of other Ls, &

overall “funds of knowledge”

- the knowledge base & life strategies that children learn at home & in their local community

(Moll & González, 1997)

Examples:

multimodal, dual / multi-language ‘texts’

language portfolios

linguistic history interviews

code-meshing in written texts (Identity Texts; digital storytelling)

translanguaging / polylanguaging in readers’ theatre . . .

1. LANGUAGE ‘USE’ → task-based approach to

communicative language teaching (CoE, 1991)

2. LITERACY ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK → prioritize identities to maximize cognitive

engagement in learning; with heightened

investment comes greater academic achievement (Cummins, 2001)

3. TRANSFORMATIVE MULTILITERACIES

PEDAGOGY → language not the only factor in

educational achievement, but can address diverse

learners’ needs when respect & support for L1

linked to respect & incorporation of identities in

curriculum (Cummins, 2009)

Research Focus:

1. Educator constructions of ‘legitimate knowledge’ &

views on providing space for alternative knowledges

(e.g., plurilingualism)

2. Affordances provided to educators

Methodology:

teacher interviews

document analysis (pedagogical & curricular materials)

Educators

– teachers of Nepali-Bhutannese refugee children with have limited prior schooling

- teachers providing ELD programming (vs. ESL)

- ELD = requiring literacy & numeracy development due to interrupted schooling

Educational structures: ELD projekt – teaching literacy, numeracy & skills (how to ‘do school’)

- cultural support worker in the school for families

- parents taking ESL

Educator’s struggles:

Understanding that the children were not all speaking ‘Nepali’

Recognizing L1 from last name

Acceptance of translanguaging

Need to improvise

Children’s struggles

Wanting ‘normalcy’ back → speaking ‘Nepali’ to the teacher

“N” on report card – behavioural norms N = needs

improvement

S = satisfactory

G = good

E = excellent

Board level electronic “Students” → “Elementary resources” “Databases” →

Supports

Ex. Photo Gallery

Photos | Videos | Slideshows | Interviews | Famous People | Recipes | Flags | Graphs and Tables

Access to appropriate materials increases teachers’ sense of preparedness & self-efficacy

→ ramifications for teacher motivation & student achievement)

Pearson Canada (2014),

“Big ideas” series

Pearson Canada (2014), “Big ideas” series

Kirwans & Little (2014)

“managing” diversity in education

administrative support

whole-school language policies - cum - culturally responsive pedagogy

‘language awareness’ to raise awareness of linguistic diversity as plurilingual teaching strategy (International Linguistics Olympiad http://www.ioling.org/ & L across the curriculum)

upsetting the apple cart (unsettling identities) — who is a learner? who is proficient?)

— from linguistic to cultural awareness

— the importance of children’s agency

Macro

Necessary affordances—1. teacher education – gain knowledge of diversity; 2. materials (to facilitate culturally responsive pedagogy); 3. broader enabling structures (school board, Ministry)

Micro

Role of educator beliefs & belief in self

Onus for change—broader than all up to the individual teacher

Need:

knowledge base in cultural diversity

& culturally relevant curricula

It takes a community to raise a child.